• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Starship Repair Logistics

Rupert

SOC-12
As a result of the thread on galleys, and food storage requirements, I've been looking at the rules for starship storage of rations and life support parts, and from there parts in general.

When it comes to food and life support consumables Traveller gives prices, but not volume/mass, and doesn't tell us how much storage for the stuff is assumed. We can assume two weeks, but what if we want to provision a ship for a multi-month journey with resupply? How much extra volume should be put aside for this? How much stuff can just be crammed into the standard (invisible) storage?

The same goes for repair parts. In CT and similar rules this isn't too much of an issue, as the only maintenance that costs is the annual overhaul, but on some rule sets there's ongoing work as well, and that presumably has at least some parts requirement, if only broken bulbs and so on (though life support parts are presumably part of that Cr1000 per week per person). Battle damage does require parts, from 'a stock' in CT - but how many parts, to what value? And how much cargo space will extra parts take up?

We can guess some of the answers by looking at RL numbers (as has been above for rations), and by guesstimating from the trade tables - presumably parts would be some mixture of electronics, mechanical, and computer parts and so probably worth about Cr100,000 per DTon. But what value and mass of parts come with a ship 'for free' and are stored 'invisibly' we just don't know.

Running a 'Coalition' New Era game this was annoying, as ship maintenance and repair, and the struggle to find parts is a major theme of space-flight in that time and place. There were useful sections on repair and how many 'parts' were held with each system and a statement that parts for annual maintenance could be purchased and carried (1/2000th of ship's new price - so half the normal cost of annual maintenance is parts, and 1/200th of the ship's displacement) was useful (but it gives a variable value/ton for parts, which might be realistic, but isn't convenient). However, still no general guidance on how much space extra parts would take up. The numbers for annual maintenance parts are repeated in GT.

These numbers have a TNE Type-S' annual maintenance parts consuming 0.5 DTons of volume and costing Cr25,240 (~Cr50,000/DTon). A Far Trader's come in at: 1 DTon and Cr28,605. A Patrol Cruiser's: 2 DTons, Cr98,750 (~Cr50,000 DTon). You could probably generalise this as Cr50,000/DTon for scout and military ships and half that for civilian ships. For small starships the numbers are similar in GT, but very large warship ships in GT can have parts that cost double or more of that per DTon.

MgT 2e does provide a cost and volume for parts for repairs - Cr100,000/DTon (what I guesstimated above), and implies that there is no 'invisible' storage in a MgT ship. No mention is made of the stats of parts for routine maintenance - which is expected to be carried out during every month, and so requires ships travelling in backwater volumes of space to be carrying parts.

IF there's material of this in T5, I was unable to find it.

The best I've got to reconcile these numbers is that perhaps annual maintenance parts are 1) specific items purchased to meet known repair/replacement needs rather than expensive multi-function parts, and 2) generally for those large, heavy, relatively cheap parts that wear out in nice predictable ways, rather than parts for things just just break, 'blow up' apparently randomly, or that tend to break when shot up. Thus the parts required for annual repairs cost less per unit of volume/mass, but wouldn't be very useful for repairing battle damage or the like.

It's a bit annoying that it takes trawling through multiple editions to glean this.
 
CT Beltstrike.

"In long voyages of this type, life support not only costs money but takes up measurable cargo space. Life support costs are paid as in the Traveller rules (Cr2000 per person per 2 weeks, or Cr1000 per week); 150 person-weeks of life-support supplies take up one ton of cargo space and cost Cr150,000. This amount will support one person far 150 weeks, 3 people for 50 weeks, etc. Life support supplies include food, air and water (to replace leakage from the recycling process), and consumable elements of the life support system, such as filters, CO2 absorbers, and so on."
 
1,000Cr per week per person seems REALLY high for 1980 dollars.

Inflation adjusted, can you spend over $500/day on food? I mean, I can, but the wine is going to be REALLY GOOD...
 
As a result of the thread on galleys, and food storage requirements, I've been looking at the rules for starship storage of rations and life support parts, and from there parts in general.

When it comes to food and life support consumables Traveller gives prices, but not volume/mass, and doesn't tell us how much storage for the stuff is assumed. We can assume two weeks, but what if we want to provision a ship for a multi-month journey with resupply? How much extra volume should be put aside for this? How much stuff can just be crammed into the standard (invisible) storage?

The same goes for repair parts. In CT and similar rules this isn't too much of an issue, as the only maintenance that costs is the annual overhaul, but on some rule sets there's ongoing work as well, and that presumably has at least some parts requirement, if only broken bulbs and so on (though life support parts are presumably part of that Cr1000 per week per person). Battle damage does require parts, from 'a stock' in CT - but how many parts, to what value? And how much cargo space will extra parts take up?

We can guess some of the answers by looking at RL numbers (as has been above for rations), and by guesstimating from the trade tables - presumably parts would be some mixture of electronics, mechanical, and computer parts and so probably worth about Cr100,000 per DTon. But what value and mass of parts come with a ship 'for free' and are stored 'invisibly' we just don't know.

Running a 'Coalition' New Era game this was annoying, as ship maintenance and repair, and the struggle to find parts is a major theme of space-flight in that time and place. There were useful sections on repair and how many 'parts' were held with each system and a statement that parts for annual maintenance could be purchased and carried (1/2000th of ship's new price - so half the normal cost of annual maintenance is parts, and 1/200th of the ship's displacement) was useful (but it gives a variable value/ton for parts, which might be realistic, but isn't convenient). However, still no general guidance on how much space extra parts would take up. The numbers for annual maintenance parts are repeated in GT.

These numbers have a TNE Type-S' annual maintenance parts consuming 0.5 DTons of volume and costing Cr25,240 (~Cr50,000/DTon). A Far Trader's come in at: 1 DTon and Cr28,605. A Patrol Cruiser's: 2 DTons, Cr98,750 (~Cr50,000 DTon). You could probably generalise this as Cr50,000/DTon for scout and military ships and half that for civilian ships. For small starships the numbers are similar in GT, but very large warship ships in GT can have parts that cost double or more of that per DTon.

MgT 2e does provide a cost and volume for parts for repairs - Cr100,000/DTon (what I guesstimated above), and implies that there is no 'invisible' storage in a MgT ship. No mention is made of the stats of parts for routine maintenance - which is expected to be carried out during every month, and so requires ships travelling in backwater volumes of space to be carrying parts.

IF there's material of this in T5, I was unable to find it.

The best I've got to reconcile these numbers is that perhaps annual maintenance parts are 1) specific items purchased to meet known repair/replacement needs rather than expensive multi-function parts, and 2) generally for those large, heavy, relatively cheap parts that wear out in nice predictable ways, rather than parts for things just just break, 'blow up' apparently randomly, or that tend to break when shot up. Thus the parts required for annual repairs cost less per unit of volume/mass, but wouldn't be very useful for repairing battle damage or the like.

It's a bit annoying that it takes trawling through multiple editions to glean this.
This is a good question, as an answer would allow for long range ships, such deep space explorers (zhodani core expidition?), or even the non jump sleeper colony ships used in the early days of space flight. A colony ship going on a centuries long flight into the unknown (with passengers in low berths) would be unable to do a yearly maintenance at a local starport and would have to take centuries worth of spares and materials with it to keep running. The same formula could also be used for colonies on moons or space stations - many are basically just static spacecraft afterall. It could make for an interesting adventure working out how to keep a colony ship, moon base or orbital station running during the Long Night, during a siege or after Virus.
 
1,000Cr per week per person seems REALLY high for 1980 dollars.
Standard stateroom life support expenses (LBB2) are Cr2000 for 2 weeks, per person (not per stateroom, per occupant).
That's ... Cr1000 per week per person.

1 ton of cargo capacity for life support consumables yields 150 person weeks of supplies and costs Cr150,000.
 
In MgT2e life support costs are split into 2 parts - a rate per stateroom (Cr 1000 /4 weeks) plus an additional amount per person (also Cr 1000 / 4 weeks).
 
Standard stateroom life support expenses (LBB2) are Cr2000 for 2 weeks, per person (not per stateroom, per occupant).
That's ... Cr1000 per week per person.
Quoting the numbers again doesn't make them any less absurd.

They're not amortizing equipment costs with those numbers. Water is...cheap. Food is...cheap."stuff to clean out CO2", I honest don't know. 150Cr a day seems high.
 
Quoting the numbers again doesn't make them any less absurd.

They're not amortizing equipment costs with those numbers. Water is...cheap. Food is...cheap."stuff to clean out CO2", I honest don't know. 150Cr a day seems high.
ORLY? :rolleyes:

👉 LINK 👈

Progress in the development of foods throughout the space program was reflected in the lower cost and increased acceptance of the meals by the astronauts. Food cost per man per day for the Gemini program was about $300, but this was reduced to under $150 for the Apollo missions and approximately $75 per man per day for the three Skylab crewmembers.
You were saying complaining ...? 😓

That's just the cost of the meals (and I quote from the source, "food cost") ... not the "entire life support package" for survival in space for weeks (plural) at a time.



Your witness, counselor. :sneaky:
 
Bit of a misleading argument.

The environment on a 57th century starship is completely controlled. You don't need "space proof" food and the like.

You could pick up a box of fresh fruit and veg enough for a fortnight, meat for a fortnight, and keep it in storage, refrigerators, freezers, just like on Earth. You can stock up an canned food; pot noodles if they are to your liking.

Then when it is meal time you get out the ingredients... and cook them.
 
Back to the OP - as far as spares, replacement parts, manufacturing spares and the like there are a couple of Mongoose sources to take a look at.

The Deepnight Revelation campaign has rules for a long duration mission, as does Rim Expeditions, there may be stuff in those.
 
CT Beltstrike.

"In long voyages of this type, life support not only costs money but takes up measurable cargo space. Life support costs are paid as in the Traveller rules (Cr2000 per person per 2 weeks, or Cr1000 per week); 150 person-weeks of life-support supplies take up one ton of cargo space and cost Cr150,000. This amount will support one person far 150 weeks, 3 people for 50 weeks, etc. Life support supplies include food, air and water (to replace leakage from the recycling process), and consumable elements of the life support system, such as filters, CO2 absorbers, and so on."
Which is nice, but still doesn't tell us how much you can store before you eat into cargo space. It also illustrates my gripe about having to go through everything just to find something that, in my opinion, is fairly important to quite a few 'standard' types of Traveller game.
 
In MgT2e life support costs are split into 2 parts - a rate per stateroom (Cr 1000 /4 weeks) plus an additional amount per person (also Cr 1000 / 4 weeks).
MgT2e also charges the cold sleep rate (Cr100) every month. So much for using them for long-term emergency 'life boat' situations. Presumably if you don't pay the inhabitant turns to soup upon thawing.
 
Back to the OP - as far as spares, replacement parts, manufacturing spares and the like there are a couple of Mongoose sources to take a look at.

The Deepnight Revelation campaign has rules for a long duration mission, as does Rim Expeditions, there may be stuff in those.
Rim Expeditions says that a properly trained crew (Ref's discretion) has a longer maintenance period, as does a properly designed naval or scout ship (also Ref's discretion as to what counts). They are allowed to self-perform annual overhauls, but the Ref should make them suffer make it clear it's not a routine operation, and make an event out of it. Jump drives need full overhauls every 100-150 jumps. That's it, so not directly helpful.

Deepnight Expeditions I do not have.
 
Bit of a misleading argument.
Person 1: "I believe that if you just show people the evidence and explain it to them, they'll understand and agree with you."
Person 2: "That's not true, and here's a peer reviewed study that proves it's not true."
Person 1: "Well I still believe that if you just show people the evidence and explain it to them ..."



The point of the argument is that "living in space" IS EXPENSIVE. :eek:
You could pick up a box of fresh fruit and veg enough for a fortnight, meat for a fortnight, and keep it in storage, refrigerators, freezers, just like on Earth.
So every single world you're ever going to berth at qualifies as a Garden World, with plenty of air, food and water "for the taking" as soon as you open the airlock? :unsure:

I would point out that approximately HALF of the Agricultural coded worlds have Tainted atmospheres.
The "produce" may be cheap there, but the "clean air" won't be.

Plenty of mainworlds have Hydrographics: 0 and are thus Desert Worlds.
What do you think the price of water is going to be at those starports?

Quite a few mainworlds have Atmosphere: A-C.
What kind of "easily obtainable life support supplies" do you think will be available there (and at what price)? :unsure:

Point being that using the Solomani homeworld as your "benchmark expectation" for what EVERY WORLD is going to be like (in terms of life support resources) is just ... foolish.

Even in the Sol system, would you expect "life support products" at locations other than Terra to be as "cheap" and easily obtainable as they are on Terra? Heck, even if you only go as far as Luna, the natural satellite of Terra ... air, food and water for life support will be as easily and cheaply obtainable as they are on Terra ... right? :rolleyes:
Right. :cautious:
RIGHT? :mad:
Bit of a misleading argument.
The "ingredients" for life support are only cheap on Garden Worlds (kind of by definition). :rolleyes:
And every world in every star system is a Garden World ... right? :unsure:
Right? :cautious:
 
The point of the argument is that "living in space" IS EXPENSIVE. :eek:
maybe so in the early years of Terran spaceflight, by the 57th century which is what is being discussed not so much.
So every single world you're ever going to berth at qualifies as a Garden World, with plenty of air, food and water "for the taking" as soon as you open the airlock? :unsure:
Every single world that you berth at got there via STL transport or jump, the tech exists for enclosed environment farming.
I would point out that approximately HALF of the Agricultural coded worlds have Tainted atmospheres.
The "produce" may be cheap there, but the "clean air" won't be.
And I would point out you build your agricultural factories in sealed environments and filter out the taints.
if people can live there then so can animals and plants, especially in environmentally controlled buildings.
Plenty of mainworlds have Hydrographics: 0 and are thus Desert Worlds.
What do you think the price of water is going to be at those starports?
Manufacture it from the hydrogen and oxygen in rocks. You have cheap unlimited fusion power, making water shouldn't be much of a task.
Quite a few mainworlds have Atmosphere: A-C.
What kind of "easily obtainable life support supplies" do you think will be available there (and at what price)? :unsure:
Cheap unlimited fusion, complete environmental control within buildings - trivial
Point being that using the Solomani homeworld as your "benchmark expectation" for what EVERY WORLD is going to be like (in terms of life support resources) is just ... foolish.
No one is claiming such a thing, you are making up your own arguments for the sake of argument.

A culture that has achieved jump travel has unlimited cheap energy and total control over the environment within its buildings.
Even in the Sol system, would you expect "life support products" at locations other than Terra to be as "cheap" and easily obtainable as they are on Terra? Heck, even if you only go as far as Luna, the natural satellite of Terra ... air, food and water for life support will be as easily and cheaply obtainable as they are on Terra ... right?
By the 57th century with thousands of environmentally controlled farms where ever you want them and unlimited cheap fusion power?
:ROFLMAO:
:ROFLMAO:
:ROFLMAO:
The "ingredients" for life support are only cheap on Garden Worlds (kind of by definition). :rolleyes:
Absolute rubbish, the elements are available just about everywhere in the system, and exploiting them by the 57th century is trivial.
And every world in every star system is a Garden World ... right? :unsure:
Are you claiming so, I think you are mistaken.
:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top